(08-01-2013 06:56 PM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote: Okay. We can discuss the morality of the biblical God.
I have only read Genesis in the Torah and Matthew in the Bible, as that was enough to convince me that religion was fucked up.
Why would a benevolent God kill every human being on Earth including infants, children, and pregnant women?
How could people believe in a God that evil?

You still haven't addressed as to what is considered evidence. Your above point is non-sequitur as it does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God. You are simply disagreeing with God's morality.

Last chance, dude... if you want to debate, you need to learn how to debate.

Regardless, I will still address your point:

The Bible never makes the claim that God is omnibenevolent. Yes, it says that he is benevolent, but His benevolence is given by His own accord.

Next, morality is a relative concept. What you find moral I may find immoral and vice versa. Likewise, God's morality is relative to Him. God's morality is not human morality. Since the God of the Bible is considered perfect - omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent - He cannot be judged by those that are lesser than Him. If God is sovereign, we cannot judge God, which means that God is autonomous, and God is only accountable to Himself.

So, those things that may seem immoral to us, may not be immoral to God. If God is perfect, then everything He does is perfect - not in a "good/nice/moral" way, but in a purposeful/order way. God ordained and created sin because it serves a purpose. So, sin has to happen, which is a simple cause and effect. The evil that happens is because of an ordered purpose of God's plan. Likewise, God slaughtering people is because of an ordered plan.

Since you never established what is evidence, and you skipped immediately to God, we are assuming that the God of the Bible is true as is what the Bible says about God. With this being said, and the acceptance of the knowledge of God coming from the Bible, then the evidence stands (as what is said in the Bible), that God is perfect and so is His plan.

With this established, there is no immorality being displayed by God because of His autonomous nature.

In the New Testimate, it states that "The difference between man and God is that God doesn't sin.", which contradicts the fact that he committed so many violations of his own commandments.
The Bible has plagiarized so many other mythologies too the point in which it is an utter rip-off.
The first Bible (New Testimate) wasn't written until fifty years after the supposed Christ died.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." contradicts the fact that he impregnated Mary.
"Thou shalt not convent.".
If God were to have chosen Mary to have carried his son, then wouldn't he have to have convented?
Such hypocrisies can easily easily refute the Bible.

(08-01-2013 07:48 PM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote: In the New Testimate, it states that "The difference between man and God is that God doesn't sin.", which contradicts the fact that he committed so many violations of his own commandments.

Citation needed

Quote:The Bible has plagiarized so many other mythologies too the point in which it is an utter rip-off.

Irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:The first Bible (New Testimate) wasn't written until fifty years after the supposed Christ died.

Irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:"Thou shalt not commit adultery." contradicts the fact that he impregnated Mary.
"Thou shalt not convent.".

Irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:If God were to have chosen Mary to have carried his son, then wouldn't he have to have convented?

Do what? Oh, and irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:Such hypocrisies can easily easily refute the Bible.

Oh, so we're refuting the Bible now? Yep, you guessed it... irrelevant to the existence of God.

If you are addressing the Bible to show God's hypocrisies, then you cannot try and refute it as well. You are destroying your own argument by discrediting your authoritative evidence.

(08-01-2013 07:48 PM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote: In the New Testimate, it states that "The difference between man and God is that God doesn't sin.", which contradicts the fact that he committed so many violations of his own commandments.

Citation needed

Quote:The Bible has plagiarized so many other mythologies too the point in which it is an utter rip-off.

Irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:The first Bible (New Testimate) wasn't written until fifty years after the supposed Christ died.

Irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:"Thou shalt not commit adultery." contradicts the fact that he impregnated Mary.
"Thou shalt not convent.".

Irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:If God were to have chosen Mary to have carried his son, then wouldn't he have to have convented?

Do what? Oh, and irrelevant to the existence of God.

Quote:Such hypocrisies can easily easily refute the Bible.

Oh, so we're refuting the Bible now? Yep, you guessed it... irrelevant to the existence of God.

If you are addressing the Bible to show God's hypocrisies, then you cannot try and refute it as well. You are destroying your own argument by discrediting your authoritative evidence.

Please show me evidence for the non-existence of God.

Evidence for non-existence? I think I gave it to you.
Lack of evidence for existence. Lack of evidence for the existence of something serves as evidence for non-existence. I've pointed out the fact that there is no empirical evidence for God, and you're just going in a circle with that 'For The Bible Tells Me So' argument
93% of the members of the American Academy of Science are atheist or agnostic, and people whom are college-educated have a higher likelihood of being atheist.
States that are more religious trend to (on average) have lower IQs than more secular states.
I cannot believe in something that does not have empirical evidence! It's not logical!
Gods were created by primitive humans who had no other way to explain the world?
The scientific methods has displaced God and has given power to reason. I don't ever mean to offend, but to be honest God is a bunch of bullshit.
Different gods have been worshipped throughout human history, just to be replaced by other man-made gods.
Also, what created your God?

Damn, KC, I never thought I'd say this but I'm chomping at the bit to take your side this time. I suppose that's only fair given the number of times you've risen to the defense of us atheists against theists with indefensible assertions.

But, outta deference, I'll stay out of this one. This fun's all yours.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

(08-01-2013 08:30 PM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote: Evidence for non-existence? I think I gave it to you.

No you didn't.

Quote:Lack of evidence for existence. Lack of evidence for the existence of something serves as evidence for non-existence. I've pointed out the fact that there is no empirical evidence for God, and you're just going in a circle with that 'For The Bible Tells Me So' argument

No it's not. AGAIN, you have never established what is evidence when talking about the metaphysical... this is... what... my forth time asking you to do it?

I affirmed before you did that there is no empirical evidence for God because empirical evidence is based on the physical. You cannot use physical evidence to prove the metaphysical. So, the question remains, "What do you consider 'evidence' in terms of metaphysical?"

I used the Bible because you used it as evidence. You cannot use it as evidence and then complain that I used it as evidence as well.

Quote:93% of the members of the American Academy of Science are atheist or agnostic, and people whom are college-educated have a higher likelihood of being atheist.

How does this disprove the existence of God?

Quote:States that are more religious trend to (on average) have lower IQs than more secular states.

How does this disprove the existence of God?

Quote:I cannot believe in something that does not have empirical evidence! It's not logical!

Quantum physics is based solely in the principle that things exists without empirical evidence. Quantum physics is considered a legitimate scientific field. There is no empirical evidence for other dimensions, but that does not disprove their non-existence. It is all based on circumstantial evidence, assumptions, and hypothesis in regards to fields that do not present us with empirical evidence.

If you say the lack empirical evidence isn't logical in regards to beliefs, then you are discrediting the entire field of quantum physics and people who are much more intelligent that both of us.

Moreover, if you are debating the existence of God, then you need to establish that you will accept evidence outside of empirical evidence because of God being metaphysical.

Quote:Gods were created by primitive humans who had no other way to explain the world?

How does this disprove the existence of God?

Quote:The scientific methods has displaced God and has given power to reason. I don't ever mean to offend, but to be honest God is a bunch of bullshit.

For the last time, you cannot use the physical to prove/disprove the metaphysical. The scientific method is irrelevant to God's existence because it only deals with the physical - testable evidence.

Quote:Different gods have been worshipped throughout human history, just to be replaced by other man-made gods.

How does this disprove the existence of God?

Quote:Also, what created your God?

Going on the assumed acceptance of evidence in this debate, God always existed since one of His characteristics is omnipresence.

Please stop with the stawman fallacies and the non-sequitur arguments.

You have not once addressed anything I've brought forth to the debate.